The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe

@Relinquish,

Your problem in your various discourses is the use of ambiguous terms. What do you mean by "pure" in any of your statements? How is one to know what is pure and what is not? You have a serious communication problem.

1 Reply

@Relinquish,

I think I understand what you mean by "pure awareness." It is that which occurs even before content arises. When I meditate I rarely carry away memories of the content of awareness. It is where, in the words of the Heart Sutra, emptiness is form and form is emptiness. No problem. If someone finds difficulty with the clarity of your communication it is because he most likely has no idea of what you are trying to communicate ( I say this without having yet read your OP); it is beyond language and "proper" usage*. Carry on; you are doing fine.

* We mustn't try to shrink the world to the size of a dictionary.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Good question. I think I use the word 'pure' in four main ways.

Pure Awareness: what most fundamentally IS, the infinite, eternal self-experiencing presence of Reality itself.

Pure Experiencing: what is most fundamentally 'going on', seamless experiencing OF Reality itself BY Reality itself, that is not actually divided into an 'experiencer' and what is 'experienced'. This causes Reality itself to APPARENTLY (but not actually) bifurcate into;

Pure Chaos: always different, never the same, from moment to moment. The 'experienced'. Infinite emptiness.

Pure Order: always the same, never different, from moment to moment. The 'experiencer'. Finite form.

2 Replies

@Relinquish,

The 'experienced'. Infinite emptiness.
The "experienncer'. Finite form.
TAT TVAM ASI

0 Replies

Correction,

I ment to equate Pure Chaos with finite form, and Pure Order with infinite emptiness.

0 Replies

@Relinquish,

Well that was completely unhelpful. You can have your opinions, you don't get to have your own, idiosyncratic definitions of words. Language only works when there is consensus about the meanings of words, otherwise it fails as communication. I find what you have been babbling about to be meaningless. Perhaps entertaining for you, but conveying nothing worth hearing to others.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I'm basically attempting to provide an explanation as why there seems to be 'something' even though the only real possibility is infinite, eternal nothingness, and also why this apparent something has THIS particular character (and the experiencing thereof), rather than any of an infinite number of other (seemingly equally possible) characters.

Have you read all my post on this thread so far?

1 Reply

@Relinquish,

Quote:

The following is essentially my 'theory of everything'. I just felt like sharing with you, and would love to know what you guys think of it.

In truth, any given 'particular thing' (for example, a tree) can ONLY exist if the right conditions are present. These conditions are 'not the tree', and are necessarily comprised of 'other things', ALL of which can ONLY exist if the right conditions are present. These conditions are 'not those other things', and are necessarily comprised of 'other other things', ALL of which can ONLY exist if the right conditions are present....and so on, ad infinitum.

Therefore, 'the tree' could not possibly appear in exactly the way that it is without the ENTIRETY of 'not the tree' (which is, in this context, most accurately defined as the all-inclusive and as such fundamentally singular and ultimately boundless presence that lies beyond 'the tree') appearing in exactly the way that it is.

In this way, 'the tree' and 'not the tree' are realized to be an absolutely inseparable 'pair' of opposites, which (like ALL such pairs) is inextricably indicative of the 'deeper' (and MORE ACTUAL) Reality that is itself fundamentally seamless and as such completely devoid of BOTH. Therefore, it isn't actually true that there exists EITHER 'the tree' OR 'not the tree', that are intrinsically different from and/or independently other than each other in the way in which they SEEM to be. EXACTLY the same is true of 'Me' and 'Not Me' (and of 'You' and 'Not You').

There is a big error in your analogy or example in what it concerns to the "right conditions and the tree".

Actually, the "tree and not the tree" are not opposites but in reality both are complementary.

From here, the rest just fails.

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

What I mean here is that there isn't an ACTUAL distinction between these 'two', whether they be opposite OR complimentary, because one will truely NEVER be found in the absence of the other. Like 'up' will never be found where 'down' is not present, and vice versa. Because it isn't ONLY true that the 'the tree' needs 'the right conditions/not the tree' to be present. The reverse is also true. That is to say, 'the right conditions' can not be present WITHOUT 'the tree' coming into being as a result. If 'the tree' ISN'T there, 'the conditions' CAN NOT POSSIBLY be 'right', and we could call the remaining state 'not the tree'. If 'the conditions' ARE 'right' (i.e. if 'not the tree' is present) there is no way to stop 'the tree' being there.

This being the case, whatever is either side of this distinction (that isn't really there) can't really be there either.

0 Replies

In truth, there is never any real duality. As such, there is no real universe, and so, no real things. The true nature of everything is the one self-experiencing Nothing, without beginning, ending or edge, always already perfect and complete, and absolutely sufficient unto Itself. As such, It remains forever in an unfathomable state of unthreatenable bliss.

We are That.

"Something is missing" is only ever just a thought. There is never anything actually missing from what we are. 'Problems' don't exist in truth.

Upon realizing this, we can rest, and laugh.

Smile

1 Reply

@Relinquish,

Yes, sadly, i've read your posts, and it's babble-speak, founded upon a host of undemonstrated propositions, such as "an infinite, eternal nothingness," which you propagate every time you post. Bye.

1 Reply

@Relinquish,

Quote:

Upon realizing this, we can rest, and laugh.

.....as concluded in Siddhartha's "laughing river". Hesse

Dissenters from a thesis of non-duality do not understand that words can only point to your position. They cannot describe it anymore than words could describe to a non-swimmer the experience of swimming in the sea.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Your words indicate that you feel that Reality is finite and temporary. I infact HAVE demonstrated exactly how this can not be the case. Whether you like it or not, and whether you choose to take up the challenge or not (I suspect not), the burden of proof is on you, my friend.

Smile

2 Replies

@Relinquish,

Alas. If you cannot see that the word "proof" does not apply to the thesis, you have lost the plot. Sad

2 Replies

@fresco,

It depends what kind of proof we're talking about. Obviously, what I'm saying can NEVER be proven empirically.

0 Replies

@Relinquish,

My words indicate nothing of the kind. My words indicate that i'm not interested in babble. I can't believe i'm still reading here.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Hehe

You think that what I'm saying is 'babble' because you believe that 'something actually exists', that is to say, that Reality is 'something', and therefore, that Reality is finite and temporary.

If this is not why you are calling my posts 'babble', then why?

Surely it isn't such a simple matter as you not liking the way I'm using these words, right?

2 Replies

@fresco,

Is someone who adopts monism a "monad?" Or is it gonad, I forget? Liebnitz would probably know, eh?

1 Reply

@Relinquish,

I call your posts babble, in one example here, because you seem addicted to ipse dixit pronouncements. So, in this example:

Quote:

. . . you believe that 'something actually exists', that is to say, that Reality is 'something', and therefore, that Reality is finite and temporary.

You predicate your remarks on an undemonstrated premise that reality is finite and temporary if it is something (anything). I have a problem with you making claims for which you don't even bother to offer bad logic. All you offer are pronouncements which, apparently, we are to accept just because you have made them. Furthermore,your pronouncements become nonsensical because they are not related to any internal consistency nor any basis of discussion. If reality were finite and temporary, so what? What has that to do with the price of apples in Seattle? What significance would that have?

You're babbling, and you must think that makes it philosophy. Given what i've seen of formal philosophy, you may be right.

1 Reply

@Relinquish,

Oh, and by the way, as i believe i have already pointed out, language does not function as communication unless there is consensus about definitions--so, no, i am not enamoured of your eclectic approach to language.

0 Replies

The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know